WORK COMPLETED RESULTS

Transcription

1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: BOLTON RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION STUDY AGRICULTRAL IMPACT ASSSESMENT PART A TO: NICK MCDONALD FROM: SEAN COLVILLE SUBJECT: BRES AGRICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PART A RESULTS DATE: JULY 7, 2014 The following technical memorandum summarizes the results for Part A of the BRES Agricultural Impact Assessment completed in June This technical memorandum includes information regarding the soil and Canada Land Inventory (CLI) agricultural capability for each of the original six BRES Option lands, as well as the determination of the MDS I setback requirements based on the observed land uses within 1,000m of the boundary of each Option and through farm interviews. Mapping showing the MDS I setback requirements for each Option have been included with this submission. WORK COMPLETED A land use survey was completed in June of 2013 in order to determine the land uses within the Study Areas of all six Options. Landowner interviews were also conducted in order to gather site specific information required to complete the Minimum Distance Separation I calculations for each of the Options. Detailed soil and CLI data was obtained from OMAFRA s Geomatic Services in Guelph. This provided information on each soil types mapped and the CLI rating applied to each soil polygon. This information is used to assess the soil resources within each of the Option boundaries in order to provide a preliminary analysis of their agricultural priority based on soil resources only. RESULTS The results of the soil/cli assessment and the calculation of the MDS I setback requirements are included below. The results are based on the boundaries originally provided to Colville Consulting by the Town of Caledon on June 6, SOIL AND CLI The soil and CLI information for each of the Options was reviewed and analyzed to assess the relative amount of prime agricultural land potentially impacted by the proposed settlement area expansion. The Provincial Soil Resources Database shows that the most common soils mapped in the area are the King Clay Loam, Chinguacousy Clay Loam, Monoghan Clay Loam, Oneida Clay Loam, Peel Clay, Jeddo Clay Loam, Malton Clay, Pontypool Sandy Loam, Muck, and Bottom Land. A CLI class rating for each soil polygon within the Options was assigned based on the Provincial Soil Resources Database information. The total area and percentage of each CLI class was calculated for each of the Options. The results are shown in Table 1. All of the Options contain Prime Agricultural Land (CLI Classes 1-3) and as a result, some Prime Agricultural Land (PAL) will be consumed as a result of settlement area expansion. COLVILLE CONSULTING INC. 404 QUEENSTON STREET, ST. CATHARINES, ONTARIO L2P 2Y2 1

2 Table 1. CLI Information for Options (including the Rounding Out Areas) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 CLI Class Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Organic % % % % % % Total PAL* % % % % % % Total Area % % % % % % *PAL = Prime Agricultural Land (CLI Classes 1-3) Table 2. Agricultural Productivity: Hoffman Productivity Indices (HPI) Option HPI Score CLI Class Equivalent Class Class Class Class Class Class 1 COLVILLE CONSULTING INC. 404 QUEENSTON STREET, ST. CATHARINES, ONTARIO L2P 2Y2 2

3 Option 1 has the least amount and lowest percentage of PAL (96.0 ha and 44.8%, respectively), while all other Options contain 180 ha or more PAL. Because each Option contains several different CLI classes the Hoffman Productivity Indices (HPI) were used to determine the CLI class equivalent for each Option. This results in a single HPI score for each Option. The higher the HPI score the higher the potential agricultural productivity of the land. For this analysis Option 5 has the highest HPI score while Option 1 has the lowest. As shown in Table 2 above, all but one of the Options have lands which are equivalent in productivity to CLI Class 1 lands. In comparison to the other Options, Option 1 has a lower level of productivity. It is equivalent to a CLI Class 3 soil in productivity. This is due to the relatively high amount of CLI Class 4 lands located within this Option compared to the other Options. MINIMUM DISTANCE SEPARATION I Section d) of the 2014 PPS requires that a new or expanding settlement area is in compliance with the minimum distance separation formulae. The minimum distance separation (MDS) is a tool used to determine the separation distance between livestock facilities and non-compatible land uses. It deals specifically with odour and does not account for noise, dust or other farm generated products. It is applied to all farm operations that have infrastructure reasonably capable of housing livestock. The MDS I formulae provides the minimum distance separation between existing livestock facilities (and empty livestock facilities) and new non-agricultural use including settlement area boundary expansion. As per the ToR for BRES, the Minimum Distance Separation I formula has been applied to all livestock facilities within the Study Area and within one kilometer (1,000 m) of the BRES Study Area. The MDS I formula uses the following factors to determine the MDS I setback requirements: the type of livestock; the maximum capacity of the barn for livestock; type of manure system and the type of land use (Type A or Type B). The amount of tillable acres is not used to calculate the MDS I requirement when considering settlement area expansion. The MDS I formula is not applicable to several livestock operations within the Study Areas. MDS Guideline #12 states that Where there are four, or more, existing non-farm uses closer to the subject livestock facility and in immediate proximity to the current application, MDS I will not be applied. The current application must not be located closer to the livestock facility than the four, or more, existing non-farm uses. As a result, the MDS I formula does not apply is several circumstances. The MDS I setback requirements are summarized in Table 3. Mapping showing the MDS I setback requirements for each of the Options is provided in Appendix A. As shown in the mapping and summarized in the table, the MDS I setback requirements vary for each Option. In some cases the MDS I setback requirements significantly constrain the potential development area whereas in other cases the MDS I does not pose a constraint for development. The MDS I setback encroaches within each of the Options with the exception of Options 5. COLVILLE CONSULTING INC. 404 QUEENSTON STREET, ST. CATHARINES, ONTARIO L2P 2Y2 3

4 Table 3 Summary of MDS I Setback Requirements Farm Operation No. MDS I from Livestock Barn MDS I from Manure Storage Location Encroachment into Settlement Expansion Area Option #1 No. 27 Mellow Farm 287 m 287 m None No. 29 Cheslawn Farms 438 m 550 m Approximately 305 m* No m 228 m None No. 33 Hobby Farm* 164 m 164 m None Option #2 No. 25 Stewart Farm 313m 330m None No. 28 French Farm 473m 486m Approximately 485m No. 31 Forest Hill Equestrian 280m 280m None No. 33 Hobby Farm* 164 m 164 m None Option #3 No. 21 Sprucelayne Farm 373 m 435 m Approximately 75 m No. 23 Westlake Farm 318 m 335 m Approximately 114 m No. 33 Hobby Farm* 164 m 164 m Approximately 27 m Option #4 No. 9 Beef Operation 259m 277m Approximately 20m No. 10 Beef Operation 216m 235m None No. 13 Former Dairy Operation 607m 686m None No. 18 Former Dairy Operation 283m 301m None No. 23 Westlake Farm 318 m 335 m None No. 33 Hobby Farm* 164 m 164 m None Option #5 No. 8 Seasonal Beef 256m 275m None No. 9 Beef Operation 259m 277m None No. 10 Beef Operation 216m 235m None No. 15 Hobby Farm* 324 m 324 m None No. 33 Hobby Farm* 164 m 164 m None No. 35 Elk Farm 162m 162m None No. 36 Retired Farm Operation 271m 289m None Option #6 No. 13a Former Hog Operation 607m 686m None No. 13b Former Livestock Operation 246m 265m None No. 33 Hobby Farm* 164 m 164 m None No. 35 Livestock Operation 162m 162m Approximately 32m No. 38 Former Livestock Operation 205m 225m None Note: In cases where the MDS I formula does not apply (e.g., MDS Guideline 12) have not been included in this table. * - The MDS I setback for this farm operation may be further reduced due to MDS I Guideline 12. BOLTON RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION STUDY AGRICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PART A 4

5 CONCLUSIONS Each of the Options will consume Prime Agricultural Land as a result of settlement area expansion. Option 1 consumes the least amount of Prime Agricultural Land in comparison to other Options. All of the Options, with the exception of Option 5, are constrained by MDS I setback requirements. The level of constraint varies but in general most are relatively minor. The majority of the area within the Options will comply with the MDS I requirements. Options 1 and 2 are the most impacted by the MDS I setback requirements. Settlement boundary expansion will be constrained as a result. To comply with provincial policy, the MDS I setback requirements must be respected until such time as the livestock operations are no longer present or capable of housing livestock. This technical memorandum was prepared to provide background information in support of the BRES Study Team lead by Meridian planning. An understanding of the soil capability and the ability to comply with the MDS 1 formula are only two factors which need to be assessed when determining potential impacts of settlement area expansion. Part B of the BRES Agricultural Impact Assessment will address these and other factors in more detail. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions. Sincerely, Date: July 7, 2014 Sean Colville, President Colville Consulting Inc. BOLTON RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION STUDY AGRICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PART A 5

6 APPENDIX A MDS I SETBACK REQUIREMENTS

7

8

9

10

11

12